Posted
by
Unknown Lameron Monday June 10, 2013 @08:10PM
from the but-only-because-of-famine dept.

DavidGilbert99 writes "According to the latest report from analysts at CCS Insight, there will be more mobile phones and tablets in use in four years' time than there are people on the planet. With the machines well and truly taking over, will we be using them or will they be controlling us?"

I sure as fuck only have 1 phone and 0 tablets, and that's won't even change.Everyone I know who has a tablet and a phone pretty much only uses the phone.

I sure hope so!

You fuck more than 1 phone and a tablet on the side - well buddy, you can bet your ass that the phone will find out and leave you. And what? You're stuck with an aging, sagging, out of date tablet who can't even play Flash videos?!

Really?

On a side note, folks say I ahve a porblem with reading compreshension and spelling. I have no idea where they get that from!

I've only seen two uses for tablets... ok - three, but the third is kind of dumb.

1) Entertaining your toddler with Angry Birds and Skype with grandma.2) Bringing it on the bus to read the news so you can look like a hipster.3) You're working in marketing/sales at a technology company and want to look like you know the latest tech when making presentations.

You forgot reading ebooks, which for a tablet also includes comics and manga (either legitimate or pirated). They're also useful for all purposes when travelling far from home, and on the bus to watch videos (most of which are probably pirated too).

I also take mine to role playing game sessions since I have (non-pirated) gamebooks on mine.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, my wife and I spent 4 days poolside in the Dominican Republic with a Kindle Fire and a Nook Color. Conditions bright enough every day for both of us to need sunglasses.

Yet, strangely enough, neither one of us had any problem whatsoever using our tablets to read ebooks for hours on end.

Am I saying that tablets with color LED displays are _better_ than e-ink readers for long term reading and battery life? Absolutely not! But the days when reading

"It is fun to use a Moore's Law extrapolation. Only 30 years later, cellphones will outnumber insects on the planet."

You misunderstand Moore's Law. It's all about the number of transistors in a chip, not the number of devices made from chips.

Windows has shown us that software consumes resources faster than Moore's law can keep up. My PC takes longer to boot than the Apple ][ (and 8088 PC clone) I had in the early days. Applications run not faster (but look prettier).

You are and idiot, it was a joke on the rapid "semi-exponential" growth that transistor count has been regarded to have, and obviously cellphones will never outnumber the insects on the plant or atoms in the universe. Really? You wanted to put down an AC for that?

But on that topic, what's the deal with this company? Their staff roster [ccsinsight.com] doesn't seem to include any actual mathematicians or statisticians. They don't mention anywhere in the press release (or any other articles I could find on their site) how they arrive at their figures. It's just Jobs-style gut feelings and marketing experience. Even if their predictions are right it's impossible to trust such unbacked assertions... and, ultimately, it's irrelevant to the real players: Microsoft, Google, and Apple all e

Yeah how many processors in your car engine? Radio/Entertainment device? Tires? Clothes? Google Glass? With the advent of smart dust, you can put processors everywhere in virtually everything, and a bunch of that is going to be mobile.

He said "I" and "Everyone I Know". Those are some pretty specific constraints. He was making a speculation, and I see nowhere that he extrapolate that to everyone. Nor did he indicate he was an American, nor in Southern state if you're the same AC commenting below. Seems you're just as bad as far as making hostile presumptions about other people based on little to no evidence. You're entitled to your opinion, but should be embarrassed at your hypocrisy because it just demonstrates your own stupidity.

I have 2 old mp3 players I haven't used in many years and don't even know where they are. I also have some calculators I don't use. I have an old IPod Touch I got for free I don't use. Pretty soon I'll likely end up with such a collection of phones, tablets etc instead. So? Why should I care?

I have 2 old mp3 players I haven't used in many years and don't even know where they are. I also have some calculators I don't use. I have an old IPod Touch I got for free I don't use. Pretty soon I'll likely end up with such a collection of phones, tablets etc instead. So? Why should I care?

Did you have a point, or do you just show up to harrumph and stomp away?

I have a phone, two tablets, two e-readers. I use them all at least weekly. Different purposes and different places.My poor wife only has one tablet, a phone, and two e-readers.

Its easy to see that the TFA is spot on, and all your shouting to get off your lawn won't hold back the tide.

Between the shoddy code, poor manufacturing tolerances, poor quality control, and dependence on power sources that they cannot protect, computers and devices will not take over in my lifetime even if there was an intent to do so. That doesn't even get into design that requires humans to perform maintenance tasks, flick switches, or otherwise do things that keep the systems up that the machines might not even know about.

TFA contends that all smartphones & tablets sold are still in use. If you buy a new smartphone and throw away / recycle the old one, you don't get to count this as 2 smartphones in use.

It contends no such thing.

But far more of them remain in use after replacement than you think. I have three smartphones on my desk.One I use as a primary.One I keep around for a SIP for contacting overseas customers.One I keep just to check stocks and play games on.

I myself use 2, but I would definitely consider myself an exception rather than the norm, I don't know of anyone else in my family or circle of friends that uses multiple smartphones and most of my friends work in IT. I can't see how anyone could consider use of multiple smartphones the norm rather than the exception.

In all fareness the article definitely does seem to imply that as they are claiming 6.6 billion mobile phones in use while claiming only 2.1 billion combined tablet and smartphone sales annually by that time. either they are stating every phone sale is to a new person for the next 4 years or they are claiming every new smartphone will still be in use. If my maths is wrong please feel free to correct me, but from what I read the OP's statement isn't a lie at all.

They won't "control" us in any cool, malevolent-supercomputer-overlord, kind of way; but I'll confidently predict a downright alarming number of man hours spent drooling mindlessly and poking at the blinky lights that live behind the glass on the shiny thing.

It's too bad, really. Getting crushed by a malevolent supercomputer would be flattering in a way(just like being assassinated, only people worth mentioning get that). The fact that humans will spend time sucking up to a Tamagotchi if you let them is... rather less flattering.

Let's see, everybody in this household has a phone, tablet and we have a netbook. 7 devices for 3 people.

Yeah, I can see mobile devices outnumbering people.

Realistically, tablets will always exist next to phones. Some people might like "phablets" but form-factor matters. A phone can replace a camera, can have a lot of handy apps, but is lousy for reading, browsing and video compared to a tablet (yes, they can be done, but... ugh). In short, the tablet and smart phone are two form factors that will likely be useful for some time.

Not sure where the "smart watch" will fit in, I see it more useful as a peripheral for your phone, but some people may see it as a replacement for the phone, and supplementing as a hotspot for a tablet (which then handles everything your phone might have). That's still two devices per person, as a reasonable "data and communications tool set"

"A phone can replace a camera," how cute.... Please take a photo with your camera that even approaches what you see on 500px.comNext you will say something silly like "a phone can replace a video camera"....

"A phone can replace a camera," how cute.... Please take a photo with your camera that even approaches what you see on 500px.com

I don't know what a '500px' is. Is it like a goat?

Most people don't need high resolution multi-megapixel cameras, they want something to snap a piccy of them and their buds at the bar having a good time as a memory aid. A camera phone can do that. It can replace a camera, in that application.

A cellphone camera app isn't a replacement for an actual camera in the same way that a bicycle isn't a replacement for a car.

And yet I know many people who commute to work daily on their bicycles and are quite happy. As I said... IN THAT APPLICATION. That's the standard context when someone says "I replaced my camera with a cellphone".

You can read the AC's comment either way. It's not really clear what side of the fence he's standing on, except that by implication he's presumably opposing Obfuscant's assertion that for plenty of uses a cellphone camera serves the purpose just as well (or better, perhaps, for being more convenient).

Then again, he could equally be agreeing with Obfuscant. We may never know.

The only thing you can't get is the speed, but most people don't actually need that because work isn't so far away.

Unless you work in an area whose cost of living is so much higher than the cost of living 50 miles away that an hour's car commute each way is a profitable way to exploit such a gradient in cost of living. Or unless the loop detectors that control the traffic signals between where you live and where you work don't respond to 2-wheeled vehicles. I've seen a few intersections in Fort Wayne, Indiana, that don't respond to a bicycle and a motorcycle put together. Or unless you don't have other cyclists to show

If I need the output of a $2000+ DSLR camera, I'll get one. I don't expect my phone to do that, but honestly, for 90% of the photo/video applications I need it for, my iPhone works pretty damn well - and more importantly, it's always at my side when I'm out. There are quite a few phones (Android and Windows Phones) that are getting better cameras on them, too.

It's been at least a year since I felt like I needed to grab my digital camera.

We are talking mobile devices here, and cameras really don't fall into

I feel the same way. For doing lab experiments I have been taking pictures of petri dishes so my laptop can count the colonies that have grown on them. It works very well. I don't need anything approaching professional quality and what my phone does is get the job done.

Later I will have it capture video of how fast a pH gradient collapses. The video quality FAR exceeds anything I need for that application. A professional camera or video camera would be vastly overkill and be harder to use due to the greater

"A phone can replace a camera," how cute.... Please take a photo with your camera that even approaches what you see on 500px.com
Next you will say something silly like "a phone can replace a video camera"....

I'm yet to see a shot from a phone that can match my Canon Ixus 230HS... A point and shoot camera (albeit, a good P&S).

Phones have terrible focusing and poor lenses. You might be able to take a semi decent shot in a pinch but forget action, low light, close up and distance shots. Also yet to see a phone that gets into the camera application faster than my P&S does a cold start.

Camera's in phones have the same problem as screwdrivers on swiss army knives, they'll do in a pinch but are nowhere n

Actually, it's the people using smartphones who have trouble focusing. Symptoms include taking blurry photos, forgetting to turn the phone sideways for videos, walking in front of buses, and driving off cliffs.

For me, the tablet has little appeal. My portable device is a smart phone because it fits in my pocket. If I need more than that, I have a laptop that is little more trouble to carry than a tablet but has a much more capable UI and handy connectors for peripherals.

Let's see, everybody in this household has a phone, tablet and we have a netbook. 7 devices for 3 people.

Yeah, I can see mobile devices outnumbering people.

In the rich part of the world maybe. Where I live that's the situation too - many years ago we were well over 100% penetration rate for mobile phones - and that's counting actual telephone numbers in use. Many people have two phones, two numbers.

However only a minority of the world's population is that rich. China and India together make up almost half the world's population - and have a far lower mobile device use rate, though of course it's rising fast, and with mobile phones and subscriptions as cheap as

I carry two smartphones, have an ipad and a Nexus 7... oh and a kindle that I use when I travel... Actually I have 4 Nexus 7's.. 3 are broken ones friends gave me. and I believe I'll have a couple more broken ones soon, those replicate fast.

So yes, if people keep breaking nexus 7's I'll have 100,000 of them by the end of the year... all broken..

Using fuzzy accountant math, possibly true but not without fuzzy math. Are they including wireless devices like stoves that now come with WIFIbuilt in? Are they counting the bazillion other hardware controllers with WIFI? (each of which technical people are telling people it's both dangerous and stupid to have WIFI on!)

Middle class families can't afford more than 1 device per person, and a hefty portion of those can't afford more than 1 device per household (depending on which side of the middle class sca

And the fewer rich people who pay the majority of the taxes in the US. Tax year 2009, top 5% of AGI paid 58% of the income taxes (from here [ntu.org]).

It's good to see this getting more visibility. I think there'll more and more pressure put on everyone to pull their weight, and the old myth of the rich getting a free ride on the backs of blue collar labour are slowly evaporating. I'd like to see the day where people talk less about how much their salary is and more about how much tax they contributed. For the record, I paid $35k income tax last year.

No. From here [taxfoundation.org], the top 5% made 32% of the total AGI. That's far less than 58%.

The same link shows some amazing other numbers, like the average tax rate for the top 5% is more than 20%, while the average for all is only 11%, and the bottom 50% rate is less than 2%.

Warren Buffet was complaining that his secretary paid more in taxes than he did. That may be true, if Warren Buffet is a tax cheat. The average tax rate for the top 1% was 24%, while the average tax rate for the 25-50% group (AGI between $32k

If you paid 35K you are not rich, you are middle class. I paid a bit more than you, and am at the higher end of middle class. Taxes are absolutely unfair. Wealthy people pay 8-10% tax on average while you and I pay 35-40%.

Over 65,000 pages of tax code ensures that the elites do not pay their fair share. Any argument otherwise should be directed at the 65,000+ page tax code as proof of an unfair system. I'm sure some dip shit will claim "most of that 65,000 pages is dedicated to who pays taxes" at which

Are you willfully blind or just ignorant? The top 1% don't claim income on a large portion of their income. This is what the tax codes do more than anything else. They define what "is" income for those with large amounts of income. For example, investing private funds in a Government approved business alleviates that sum of money from their potential income. Certain tax investments available to those that can afford them also remove that income from taxes. Those deductions are in addition to, and exac

If you have evidence that someone isn't reporting all their income, report them to the IRS. That's a crime.

If it is illegal to remove income as taxable income, it is not a crime. Failure to recognize and obvious fact for a 3rd time now, you have to go back to my original question. If you have no intention of acknowledging facts, don't try to debate.

Now you're using the term "potential income". I don't know what that is, or why someone should be taxed on income that is only potentially theirs.

Similar problem here as we have above with you being ignorant, or playing ignorant. Ignorance is not necessarily an insult, and your immediate offense to the term indicates a high degree of ignorance. I freely admit with numerous subjects that I am ignorant. If I

If it is illegal to remove income as taxable income, it is not a crime.

You have no idea what you are saying, you are just ranting about rich people you don't think are paying enough in taxes. Of course if it is illegal to remove income as taxable income it is a crime. That's BY DEFINITION. Do you have any evidence that those awful rich people are doing this, or is it just conjecture on your part? If you have evidence, report it to the IRS. I think they have a bounty for such things, but even if they don't, it is your responsibility as a citizen to report it. Don't just whine

Actually I have a very good idea what I'm talking about. You seem to think that the only way to prove income tax is fair is by looking at a published list showing tax percentages paid by each income group. If you know that the income is manipulated (legally) then how is this a fair comparison? It is not fair to make a comparison this way, and people on both sides of the spectrum tell you that it's unfair.

In reality, real pre-tax income vs. taxes paid would show you how fair the system is. Currently ther

You seem to think that the only way to prove income tax is fair is by looking at a published list showing tax percentages paid by each income group.

No, but I think it is one way of doing so. You're claiming unfair, so you have the onus of producing some numbers to show that. Any number to show that. You have failed to provide any citation to support your claims. Why can't you do that?

If you know that the income is manipulated (legally) then how is this a fair comparison?

Because even with the manipulation, the top 1% of the people pay significantly more in taxes than they have in income. If they were able to game the system so well, they'd be paying much less in income taxes than they are. In case you missed it, Schedule A (deductions) c

Only pointing out two items since you keep circling back to the same exact item that I showed was wrong.

No, but I think it is one way of doing so. You're claiming unfair, so you have the onus of producing some numbers to show that. Any number to show that. You have failed to provide any citation to support your claims. Why can't you do that?

There are numerous public records showing this exact data. There is not a master registry released showing it all in one place. This is why I pointed out Warren Buffet who released all of his data showing you that he really only paid 9% tax, compared to his secretary that pays over 30%.

Income tax was never intended to solve an alleged "wealth disparity" problem. Those who hate the rich want it to be used that way, but that's not what it is supposed to be used for.

Absolutely false. Income tax was used as a major leveling factor for the majority of our legal income tax world. The

The fallacy can be dispelled by simply looking at the system working very well from the 40s through the early 80s where the elites paid a much higher percentage of income in tax.

That doesn't work for a couple of reasons. Firstly, post WW2 everyone was nationalistic, had belief in the brave new world, and invested heavily in nation building/rebuilding. That was a unique set of circumstances, along with a swing in birth rates which allowed certain conditions to be feasible then that aren't now. By the 80's these conditions were disappearing, technology improved to allowed globalisation in both communciations and transport. Trickle down economics can work in a Pre-1980's world because

Two immediate problems. First, you should really check facts. The millionaire tax rate up until the 1970s has always been in the 80-90% range (since the inception of income tax in the US). This is why I stated very clearly that tax rates are public knowledge and easy to find. The second problem should be painfully obvious: everything you said is based on false data and therefor untrue.

Bits of what you said are false for a different reason. The reason rich people can move their money overseas is due to

I am sitting in a conference room at work right now that has enough chairs for everyone at my small company to sit in. There is also a chair for me in my office, another at my desk at home, and one more in the dining room! And just think of all those chairs at restaurants around the world just waiting for me to sit in them! In fact, a recent study determined that there are 4.6 chairs for every man, woman, and child on the planet (I'll have to get back to you with the reference on that one). Basically the wo

Carrier IQ is a program supposedly used for diagnostic purposes. It is imbedded in the software of android phones. It tracks everything including key strokes.
Now here is a fun blurb from CarrierIQ dot coms website from their whitepaper section.
Carrier IQ takes consumer privacy very seriously. Anonymization and consumer choice through opt-out are important and included capabilities of Carrier IQ systems. Services are delivered to network operators through an encrypted environment. Carrier IQ acts as

Tomi Ahonen pointed out in March [blogs.com] that we already have 6.7 billion _active_ mobile accounts. This clearly means that we are already FAR past that point when you include all the devices not on telecomm networks.

BTW, in the same blog post Ahonen also estimated that the point at which active accounts would exceed the world's population would happen some time this summer.

I have news for you. They already do.
Watch anyone try to walk or eat dinner without constantly consulting their smartphone. They have us trained well.
Unfortunately, sometimes they train us to walk into walls or off of sidewalks into oncoming traffic, so it might not be a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship...